To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

vention of a court of law. This statute begins by reciting that “whereas at the time of a commotion late stirred up within this realm, and also sithence, many great men, and divers others, have disdained to be justised by the King and his Court, like as they ought and were wont in time of the King’s noble progenitors, and also in his time, but took great revenges and distresses of their neighbours, and of others, until they had amends and fines of their own pleasure.” It then provides that “none from henceforth shall take any such revenge or distress of his own authority without award of our Court, though he have damage or injury whereby he would have amends of his neighbour either higher or lower.” And it further enacts that “if any from henceforth take such revenges of his own authority, without award of the King’s Court as before is said, and be convict thereof, he shall be punished by fine, and that according to the trespass.” From the contents of this .statute it is evident that self-redress was entirely forbidden in English Law, except in very few cases.
Soon after the prohibition of revenge the system of outlawry arose. A person who refused to pay the accustomed satisfaction and sought safety in flight, was declared an outlaw, and thereby punished for his offense. The sentence was pronounced at the County Court. The effect was to deprive the outlaw of all rights of person and property. But a person outlawed might be inlawed by the grace of the King, and be admitted to the King’s peace. “But a person inlawed is not restored to anything but the King’s peace, for the King cannot grant a pardon with injury or damage to others. He is therefore not restored to his rights of action or property which he has lost by outlawry.”
In the manner, already outlined, the system of personal revenge for offenses became transformed into a system of pecuniary fines, the payment of which was enforced by outlawry. This system of pecuniary fines, in its turn, was superseded by a regular system of punishment.
In considering the various causes which led to the disappearance of the fines in the English legal system, it must be borne in mind that it was always considered an indulgence to the offender to allow him to escape the consequences of his crime by makingj, a money payment. Certain crimes, however, by reason of their enormity, were always held incapable of being compensated for by money. “Housebreaking and arsons, and open theft, and open-morth, and treason against a lord are by the secular law bot-less.”
To a great extent Christianity helped both the growth and the decline of the pecuniary fines. These fines, once regularly established, came to be looked upon as a punishment rather than as the price of forgiveness. As the moral sense was more fully developed, the finest in many cases, appeared to be a most inadequate punishment. In so far as the offense committed was a sin, the Church discouraged the idea that it could be atoned for by money alone.
Another cause of the disappearance of the fines was the system of frankpledge. By means of frankpledge, the imposition of fines was gradually transformed into an effective police organization. According to this system, all men were bound to combine themselves into groups of ten, each of whom was responsible for the acts of the others.

vention of a court of law. This statute begins by reciting that “whereas at the time of a commotion late stirred up within this realm, and also sithence, many great men, and divers others, have disdained to be justised by the King and his Court, like as they ought and were wont in time of the King’s noble progenitors, and also in his time, but took great revenges and distresses of their neighbours, and of others, until they had amends and fines of their own pleasure.” It then provides that “none from henceforth shall take any such revenge or distress of his own authority without award of our Court, though he have damage or injury whereby he would have amends of his neighbour either higher or lower.” And it further enacts that “if any from henceforth take such revenges of his own authority, without award of the King’s Court as before is said, and be convict thereof, he shall be punished by fine, and that according to the trespass.” From the contents of this .statute it is evident that self-redress was entirely forbidden in English Law, except in very few cases.
Soon after the prohibition of revenge the system of outlawry arose. A person who refused to pay the accustomed satisfaction and sought safety in flight, was declared an outlaw, and thereby punished for his offense. The sentence was pronounced at the County Court. The effect was to deprive the outlaw of all rights of person and property. But a person outlawed might be inlawed by the grace of the King, and be admitted to the King’s peace. “But a person inlawed is not restored to anything but the King’s peace, for the King cannot grant a pardon with injury or damage to others. He is therefore not restored to his rights of action or property which he has lost by outlawry.”
In the manner, already outlined, the system of personal revenge for offenses became transformed into a system of pecuniary fines, the payment of which was enforced by outlawry. This system of pecuniary fines, in its turn, was superseded by a regular system of punishment.
In considering the various causes which led to the disappearance of the fines in the English legal system, it must be borne in mind that it was always considered an indulgence to the offender to allow him to escape the consequences of his crime by makingj, a money payment. Certain crimes, however, by reason of their enormity, were always held incapable of being compensated for by money. “Housebreaking and arsons, and open theft, and open-morth, and treason against a lord are by the secular law bot-less.”
To a great extent Christianity helped both the growth and the decline of the pecuniary fines. These fines, once regularly established, came to be looked upon as a punishment rather than as the price of forgiveness. As the moral sense was more fully developed, the finest in many cases, appeared to be a most inadequate punishment. In so far as the offense committed was a sin, the Church discouraged the idea that it could be atoned for by money alone.
Another cause of the disappearance of the fines was the system of frankpledge. By means of frankpledge, the imposition of fines was gradually transformed into an effective police organization. According to this system, all men were bound to combine themselves into groups of ten, each of whom was responsible for the acts of the others.